Stop the presses: I agree with John Liu.
As frequent readers of Second Ave. Sagas will know, I don’t have a very high opinion of John Liu. I think his statements about the MTA often show a misguided sense of direction from the man in charge of the City Council’s transportation committee. And while this isn’t the first time I’ve agreed with Liu — that first momentous occasion came just a few weeks ago, as commenter Julia noted — this time, he’s really hit the nail on the head with his comments relating to congestion pricing and the future of New York City’s public transit system.
A week ago, in the Daily News Liu penned a piece on the concept of a transit lockbox. He laid out a convincing argument for the congestion fee provided that all funds go to a transit lockbox so that the State or City cannot later decide to take the money and use it for other projects. Too many times in New York history have state and city bodies re-appropriated transit funds to the detriment of the MTA and the city’s public transit network. Liu’s solution would, in effect, fix part of that problem.
Liu’s plan notes too that this money would only be part of the funds given to the MTA from New York’s governing bodies. Take a look:
First and foremost, we must turn vague commitments of transit improvements into verifiable and protected investments for transit service so that New Yorkers with the worst transit service are prioritized in congestion pricing-funded improvements.
By “protected,” I mean the money must be dedicated solely to transit – no ifs, ands or buts. Legislation must mandate a “lockbox” that cannot be tampered with. The proceeds must go to capital improvements, not the operating budget, and they must be immune from poaching by future legislative bodies.
Politicians often make such promises: The lottery money will go to education, the smoking funds will go toward health care. This time, the pledge must be ironclad.
Second, the money must be additive in terms of overall transportation funding, not an excuse for future governors, mayors and legislators to cut MTA funding by an amount equal to congestion pricing proceeds.
In short, Liu absolutely hits the nail on the head with this one. For the congestion fee to work, the MTA must reap the benefits, and the money should come on top of other funds that the MTA should receive from the State and City.
Imagine a New York City with the congestion pricing. The streets are less crowded, and it’s generally more pleasant to work around town. Cars aren’t stuck in gridlock for miles, and drivers aren’t honking when the car in front of them waits half a beat to speed through a green light.
With all of the congestion fee money going to transit, the picture looks even brighter. With fewer cars on the road, the MTA and the Department of Transportation can work to give the city dedicated bus rapid transit lanes it so deserves. The MTA could beef up service and spend more money renovating stations in less time. We can even dream of capital construction projects finding their way to completion.
The way to get there — the way to achieve this transit dream — is through congestion pricing. And congestion pricing would work only with a secure lockbox. Councilman Liu is spot on. Now, as we sit one week out from a fare hike, everyone else involved has to make this new transit revenue source happen.
6 comments
I agree that that’s uncharacteristically sane and practical of Liu. Let’s hope he doesn’t retreat into denying the personhood of straphangers or lame complaints about the political consequences of mentioning bridge tolls.
If I had any money to bet I’d be glad to put down some that if congestion pricing passes as it is now proposed it will not, after a certain adjustment period goes by, noticeably reduce daytime weekday congestion in Manhattan. I really think it’s another road use tax that will raise the cost of doing business in NYC, not reduce it. All the “projections” on Earth won’t make me believe what CP’s proponents claim until I observe it with my own eyes. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Money for the subways and buses has to come from somewhere.
I certainly agree that CP will increase the cost of doing business in NYC, because there are many drivers who have no realistic mass transit option, and who will continue to drive despite the higher cost. Unfortunately, as you say, money for mass transit has to come from somewhere.
It is entirely possible that CP will not noticeably reduce daytime traffic congestion, but at least it will generate a dependable source of funds for capital improvements.
Paul, you can see what congestion pricing did in London. Traffic decreased, as promised; congestion decreased so much the buses were running too fast to be on schedule.
Also, at least according to plaNYC, only one sixth of the people in New York who drive into Manhattan do so because of lack of transit options. Drivers in New York are overwhelmingly people who commute between two outer boroughs, reflecting the fact that cars are better for point-to-point travel while heavy rail is hub-and-spoke. Unless they decide to go from Brooklyn to Queens via Manhattan, they’re not going to be penalized for driving.
For an actual long look at traffic in London during one particular Monday morning rush hour there is the following entertaining (MHO) video from the BBC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvlCwvrzsRg
(If the link doesn’t work search YouTube with the terms “Top Gear BBC London Race.”)
I have done a quick search for articles about the London CP experience and not found anything that seems to unambiguously report significantly less or speedier traffic there as a result of CP. I know that London has restricted bus lanes, which may be a reason for the faster bus movement. The articles I have seen emphasize revenue, and I haven’t quibbled there. I just do not believe that CP is going to significantly speed up traffic during daytime business hours in Manhattan. What can I say? If it passes and I’m proven wrong I’ll say, hey, NYers surprised me, I was wrong, but I have lived in NYC my whole life, which is getting on to more years now than I am going to say, I’ve been a driver and a subway user and a cyclist, and I don’t believe the “projections.”
That CP could raise a lot of money, of that I have no doubt.
Paulb says it all – I can’t say it any better myself. Not knowledgeable enough about John Liu’s politics, I can’t really say anything other than I agree with the princple of a lock box.